This article was first published in the Summer 2001 issue of Bible and Spade.
In his book Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest (1995a; it was first published in England as A Test of Time: The Bible - From Myth to History [1995b]), David Rohl purports to have produced a better correlation between the findings of archaeology and the Bible by revising Egyptian chronology. One is tempted to dismiss Rohl as simply another crackpot and get on with more important issues. Rohl, however, cannot so easily be brushed aside. As opposed to most who attempt to revise ancient history, Rohl has some scholarly training - he has studied Egyptology and ancient history at University College, London. Moreover, the lay public, largely as the result of a three-part video series based on his book, have become enamored with his supposed Biblical correlations.
...archaeological excavations in Egypt and the Levant, ongoing for the best part of the last two centuries, have produced no tangible evidence to demonstrate the historical veracity of the early biblical narratives. Direct material support for the traditional history of the Israelite nation, as handed down in the books of Genesis, Exodus, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, is virtually non-existent (7).
This statement is, of course, grossly exaggerated and inaccurate, as even a cursory review of the many books on archaeology and the Bible will reveal. By making such a statement, Rohl has set up a straw man which he can now proceed to knock down by means of his new chronology. In actual fact, however, the cure is worse than the sickness, as the new chronology produces no correlations whatsoever!
Rohl attempts to lower Egyptian chronology by several hundred years for the period before 664 B.C. The sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal in 664 B.C. is accepted as a fixed date by Rohl and becomes the starting point for his revised chronology (119). He accomplished this by shortening the 20th Dynasty and overlapping the 21st and 22nd Dynasties (144, 384). Several scholars have critiqued the Egyptological aspects of his ideas (Bennett 1996; Brissaud 1996; Kitchen 1996: xlii-xlvi; van Haarlem 1997), but no one has evaluated the impact of his theory on Palestinian archaeology and the resulting correlations, or lack thereof, with Biblical history.
Ashurbanipal, King of Assyria. David Rohl's chronology uses Assyrian King Ashurbanipal's sacking of Thebes in 664 BC as a fixed date and is a starting point of his chronology. While several scholars have examined his chronology on the basis of evidence from Egypt, little evaluation of his theory on Palestinian archaeology has been published.
Thus, according to Rohl's scheme, the Conquest occurred in the MB IIB period, the Amarna period (Late Bronze IIA) is contemporary with the United Monarchy, making Labayu of the Amarna Letters one and the same as Saul (205-19). Late Bronze IIB is contemporary with the early Divided Monarchy, with Ramesses II being the Shishak of the Bible (149-70, 175). The Iron Age I, traditionally ca. 1200-1000 B.C., is squeezed into a mere 30 years between 820 and 790 B.C. covering the reigns of Joash and Amaziah (Judah) and Jehoahaz and Jehoash (Israel) (175).
Regarding the date of the Conquest, Rohl vacillates between the early date (ca. 1410 B.C.) and the late date (ca. 1210 B.C.) as it suits his purposes.
Rohl claims that his revised chronology will solve the "problem" of the Conquest (306-17). In his search for archaeological evidence he uses a date of 1410 B.C. for the Conquest. This would fall in the middle of the MB IIB period according to Rohl's scheme. The MB IIB period is generally thought to extend from the mid-13th Dynasty (cf. 311) to the mid-15th Dynasty, or ca. 1540-1240 in the revised chronology (ca. 1750-1615 in the standard chronology). The Israelites, Rohl says, "were the carriers of the Middle Bronze Age culture of the central hill country" (318).
The Israelites were essentially pastoralists until the United Monarchy period rather than city dwellers (170).
In addition, the recent nomads would have possessed an advanced knowledge of the technology of metallurgy and pottery manufacture. They also would have had international relations with the Hyksos rulers of Egypt (Dever 1987). This is a highly unlikely scenario. The Bible depicts the Israelites during the time of the Judges following the Conquest as subservient to the surrounding nations and living in tents (Jgs 20:8; 1 Sm 4:10, 13:2). Moreover, they did not worship in local temples made of stone and mud bricks, but in a temporary Tabernacle set up at a centralized religious center at Shiloh (Jos 18:1; 1 Sm 1:1-3).
Rohl tries to make a case that the final Bronze Age city at Jericho was destroyed part way through the MB IIB period (311). This cannot be, however, because there are late MB IIB, MB IIC (Kenyon 1993: 680; Bienkowski 1989: 172-74) and LB I (Wood 1990) phases of the Bronze Age city as attested by the pottery. Similarly, Rohl connects the destruction of Hazor XVI with the Conquest (315-16), while it is well-known that this destruction occurred at the end of MB IIC (Ben-Tor 1993: 606), not midway through MB IIB.
Rohl many times uses a late date for the Conquest (ca. 1210 B.C.) in order to show the lack of archaeological correlation and thus demonstrate the need for a revised Egyptian chronology (306). Again, he is setting up a straw man. Clearly, no evidence will be found to support a Conquest in the late 13th century B.C. since the event occurred 200 years earlier in the late 15th century B.C. according to the chronological notations given in the Bible. Using the conventional chronology there is very good evidence to support the Biblical account of the Conquest (Wood 1990; 1999a; 1999b; 1999c; 1999d; 2000a; 2000b; Forthcoming).
Frank Yurco has made a case for identifying the relief on the "Ashkelon Wall" at Karnak as a pictorial representation of Merneptah's campaign to Canaan ca. 1210 B.C. as recorded in the Merneptah Stela (Yurco 1986). The relief depicts the Israelite leader using a chariot. Rohl claims that conventional chronology will not work here since the Israelites had just arrived in the land in ca. 1210 B.C. and therefore would not have had time to develop the technology of chariot warfare (171). If the Biblical date for the Conquest of ca. 1410 B.C. is followed, however, the Israelites were already in the land for 200 years by the time of Merneptah, allowing more than enough time to develop chariot warfare.
In fact, the Bible itself indicates that the Israelites had chariots by the time of Merneptah's campaign. Shortly before this, in ca. 1230 B.C., Israel engaged in a battle against "900 iron chariots," necessitating that they themselves have chariots (Jdgs 4). The battle was fought in open country at the Kishon River, and the Israelite commander Barak "pursued the chariots" indicating that Barak had his own chariot.
Rohl uses a late date for the Conquest when discussing the Amarna Letters (200). He raises the issue that if the references to the Apiru in the letters (mid-14th century B.C. by conventional chronology) are to the Hebrews, something is wrong with conventional chronology since the Israelites did not arrive in the land until the late 13th century! Again, if one utilizes the Biblical date for the Conquest, all is well since the Amarna Letters would come from the early Judges period (cf. Wood 1997).
The Tell el-Amarna Letters are clay tablets inscribed in cunieform script, the archive of correspondence between Pharaoh Ahkenaton and foreign kings and princes. Many of these tablets are messages from kings of Canaanite cities, such as Gezer, Ashkelon and Shechem, pictured here. Rohl's chronology makes Labayu, king of Shechem during the Amarna period, one and the same as Saul of Gibeah, Israel's first king. There is not one iota of similarity in the careers of these two individuals.
The Philistines are scarcely mentioned by Rohl. And for good reason - they utterly destroy his reconstruction. According to the revised chronology, the United Monarchy corresponds to the LB IIA period. The first two kings of the United Monarchy, Saul and David, were very much involved with fighting against the Philistines. But the Philistines did not arrive in Canaan until the reign of Ramesses III at the beginning of the Iron Age (Wood 1991), ca. 800 B.C. by Rohl's reckoning. So we are left with a situation where Saul and David are fighting an enemy who does not appear in the historical or archaeological record until 300 years later!
A Philistine Soldier as depicted in a relief at Medinet Habu, Egypt. One of the Sea People groups who came to Canaan's coast from the west, the Philistines were identified by their distinctive headbands and 'feathered' (maybe horsehair?) helmets. Arriving en mass during the reign of Ramesses III, at the beginning of the Iron Age, they were major enemies of the first two kings of Israelite monarchy, Saul and David. They completely destroy Rohl's chronology, so he hardly mentions them.
Rohl advocates dating the destruction of the fortified Middle Bronze phase at Shiloh to the LB IIA period and connecting it to the Philistine destruction implied in 1 Samuel 4 and Jeremiah 7:12, 14 and 26:6, 9 (319). But this cannot be. First, no LB IIA pottery has been found in the destruction level to suggest it could be dated to that time period (Finkelstein 1993: 1367). Second, as was pointed out above, evidence for the appearance of the Philistines does not occur until the beginning of the Iron Age over a century later.
The destruction of Shiloh in the first half of the 11th century B.C. using the standard chronology very nicely fits the Philistine destruction implied in the Bible.
Archaeological evidence for the destruction of Shiloh indicates a well-fortified city was destroyed around the time of the conquest. A later destruction of the site also occurred in the first half of the 11th century BC, the time the Bible indicates the Philistines destroyed the city. Rohl tries to make the earlier Middle Bronze destruction fit the later Philistine destruction of the site. Neither archaeology or history allows such a correlation.
With the Rohl chronology, the Amarna period is contemporary with the United Monarchy (195-231). The political landscape described in the Amarna Letters , however, is much different that that during the United Monarchy. In the Amarna period, Canaan was dominated by many independent city-states in vassalage to Egypt, along with the troublesome Apiru. Palestine in the United Monarchy period , with the exception of Philistia, was politically united under one king, with the chief adversary during the reigns of Saul and David being the Philistines.
According to Rohl's correlation, Labayu, king of Shechem in the Amarna period, is one and the same as Saul of the Bible (205-19). There is not one iota of similarity in the careers of these two individuals. Several examples will suffice. Saul's capital was at Gibeah (1 Sm 10:26), as opposed to Shechem, the capital of Labayu. Gibeah is located at either Tell el-Ful or Geba (Arnold 1992). In either case, there was no occupation in the LB IIA period to match Rohl's dating of Saul to this time frame. Labayu was an Egyptian vassal. Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that Saul was an Egyptian vassal. Labayu was taken captive to be escorted to Egypt for his rowdy behavior. He managed to extricate himself from the predicament by bribing his captors. The Bible records no such thing for Saul. Labayu eventually died at the hands of his fellow vassals (Campbell 1965: 198-200), whereas Saul died on Mt. Gilboa fighting the Philistines (1 Sm 31).
The men of David fought the men of Ish-Bosheth, son of Saul, at the pool of Gibeon (2 Sm 2:12-17). That pool has been excavated and it has been determined that it was built in the Iron Age I, not the LB IIA period as required by Rohl's reckoning (Pritchard 1961: 22-23). Rohl finds the names of the Biblical figures Jesse, David, Joab, Ishbaal, and Baanah in Amarna Letter 256 (222, 228-29). This letter was written to Yanhamu, an Egyptian commissioner in Gaza. There is no hint in the Bible that David was in vassalage to Egypt or had any dealings with the Egyptians. Moreover, Gaza was not under the control of the Egyptians in David's day, but rather the Philistines and later the Israelites (2 Sm 8:1).
...the next time we hear mention of Jericho after Joshua's destruction of the town is during the reign of David (313).
This is simply incorrect. The next mention of Jericho following Joshua's destruction is in Judges 3 where we are told that Eglon, king of Moab, took possession of the "City of Palms" and built a palace there. The City of Palms, of course, is none other than Jericho (Dt 34:3; 2 Chr 28:15). Rohl makes a connection between the LB IIA "Middle Building" at Jericho, excavated by John Garstang in 1933, and David's seclusion of the Israelite delegation at Jericho recorded in 2 Samuel 10:5.
The Bible does not tell us what, if anything, was at Jericho in David's day. Garstang's Middle Building, on the other hand, exactly fits the description of Eglon's palace in Judges 3 using conventional chronology (Garstang 1941a; 1941b; 1948: 175-80). It was an isolated palatial structure with no corresponding town. There was evidence of wealth (expensive imported pottery), and administrative activities (an inscribed clay tablet). The Middle Building was constructed toward the end of the 14th century B.C. by conventional chronology, which matches the time period of the Judges 3 account according to Biblical chronology. It was occupied for only a short period of time and then abandoned, paralleling the Biblical description of an 18 year oppression by Eglon and the subsequent rout of the Moabites by Ehud and the Israelites.
The "Middle Building" was excavated in 1933 by John Garstang on Jericho's southeastern slope. A palace like structure (28 x 47 ft.), it was an isolated building with evidence of wealth and administrative activity. It date and finds fit very well with Moabite king Eglon's palace (Judges 3:12-25). Rohl completely misses Eglon's occupation of Jericho in his reconstruction and tries to relate the Middle Building to the time of David.
Rohl dates the next phase of occupation at Jericho following the Middle Building to the LB IIB period (314). He then equates this phase to the rebuilding of Jericho by Hiel of Bethel (1 Kgs 16:34). Rohl is once again incorrect in his dating. The next occupational phase at Jericho following the Middle Building dates to the Iron I period, not LB IIB (M. and H. Weippert 1976). The is no evidence for occupation at Jericho in the LB IIB period.
Rohl's discussion of the Merneptah Stela (164-70) evades one important detail which undermines his reconstruction and his chronlology. The Merneptah Stela records a campaign into Canaan within the first four years of Merneptah's reign, ca. 1210 B.C. according to conventional Egyptian chronology and ca. 867 B.C. by Rohl's chronology. In this record is the first extra-Biblical reference to the nation of Israel: "Israel is wasted and its seed is not" (Hoffmeier 1997: 28).
The name Israel is written with the determinative for people, distinctive from the other names in the inscription that are written with the determinative for territory. This indicates that the Israelites were not a settled people at this time, but were pastoralists living in tents (Hoffmeier 1997:29-30). Standard chronology would place the text in the middle of the Judges period. According to the Bible, as was pointed out above, the Israelites were living in tents at this time. Rohl's chronology, on the other hand, would date the text to the divided kingdom period when the Israelites were highly urbanized, many of them living in fortified cities.
The Merneptah Stela (sometimes called the Israel Stela) is a 7 ft 6 in (228 cm) inscribed stone slab found in his tomb, honoring Pharoah Merneptah. A son of Ramesses II, Merneptah followed him on the throne in about 1212 BC. Dated to the fifth year of his reign, it celebrated Merneptah's victory over the Libyans. At the end of the monument, as a final note of praise to the king, is mentioned an earlier victory over forces in Canaan. Here he mentions defeating Israel, written with the determinative for people not territory. This is the earliest reference to Israel in any known non-Biblical document and indicates they were not viewed as a settled nation, but unsettled pastoralists still living in tents. Rohl's chronology dates the Merneptah Stela to 867 BC, a time when archaeology indicates the Israelites were highly urbanized and living in fortified cities.
Monumental structures once attributed to the building activities of Solomon in the cities of Megiddo, Gezer and Hazor have been shown over the years to date from various archaeological periods spanning centuries (34).
This is a minority opinion of only a few scholars. The attempt to redate this material has been soundly refuted by Bill Dever (1986: 24-30; 1990), John Holladay (1990), and others (for a summary, see Merling and Younker 1994). Dever has brought together the evidence for Solomon's reign and shown it to be a period of exceptional prosperity (1982).
Rohl laments the fact that "no fine artifacts adorned with semi-precious stones and inlays, no gold, silver or ivory" (174) from Solomon's time have been found. This wealth, of course, was stored at Jerusalem. Because Jerusalem has been continuously occupied and rebuilt since the time of Solomon, no architecture from Solomon's time has been found here, let alone gold and jewels.
By making such a statement Rohl appears to be woefully ignorant of the archaeological process. Should we really expect to find such treasures? Would they be left by the ancients to be found by archaeologists thousands of years later? The answer is obvious. Rarely do valuables go unnoticed for centuries or millennia before being found. The most likely possibility of finding valuables from antiquity would be in unplundered tombs. A number of tombs have been found within the limits of Solomonic Jerusalem, including two monumental tombs that may be those of David and Solomon, but they were all robbed out long ago. Jerusalem, where Solomon's wealth was stored, was pillaged by the Egyptians, Assyrians and Babylonians. Kenneth Kitchen believes there is evidence that the bulk of Solomon's treasure was taken to Egypt (1989).
The finely built gates at Gezer, Megiddo and Hazor are dated to the time of Solomon and fit very well with the Biblical statement, "Here is the account of the forced labor King Solomon conscripted to build the Lord's temple, his own palace, the supporting terraces, the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer" (1 Kgs 9:15). Rohl says evidence for Solomon's wealth and power during the tenth century BC is sparse.
...are a direct result of Aramaean military sorties into the territory of Israel during the reigns of Jehu and Jehoahaz. The population increase in the central hill country is thus the result of a refugee movement from the outlaying areas of the kingdom into the heartland of Israel where protection was at hand (308).
There are several problems with this reconstruction. First, it is not at all clear that an increase in small agricultural villages in the Iron Age I period indicates an increase in population. It is more likely that it signals a change in lifestyle from semi-nomadism to sedentarism, brought about by social-economic conditions. Secondly, there is no evidence for a movement from outlying areas to the heartland. All areas experienced an increase in settlements in the Iron Age I period. Thirdly, there would be no more protection in the heartland than in the outlying areas since none of the settlements were fortified.
It is abundantly clear that, from a Palestinian perspective, Rohl's hypothesis is quite unworkable. Rather than enhancing the connections between archaeology and the Bible, his new chronology would destroy the many strong correlations that exist when the standard chronology is followed.
Arnold, P.M. 1992 Gibeah. Pp. 1007-9 in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 2, ed. D.N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday.
Bennett, C.J. 1996 Temporal Fugues. Journal of Ancient and Medieval Studies 13: 4-32. A copy of this article in RTF format, suitable for reading in MS Word, WordPad or other word processors, may be downloaded here.
Ben-Tor, A. 1993 Hazor: Fifth Season of Excavations (1968-1969). Pp. 604-6 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 2, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta.
Bienkowski, P. 1989 The Division of Middle Bronze IIB-C in Palestine. Levant 21: 169-79.
Brissaud, P. 1996 Le monstre du Loch Ness est-il ne dans le Lac Sacre de Tanis? Bulletin de la Societe Francaise des Fouilles de Tanis 10: 3-28.
Campbell, E.F., Jr. 1965 Shechem in the Amarna Archive. Pp. 191-207 in Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City by G. E. Wright. London: Gerald Duckworth.
Dever, W.G. 1982 Monumental Architecture in Ancient Israel in the Period of the United Monarchy. Pp. 269-306 in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays, ed. T. Ishida. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
1986 Late Bronze Age and Solomonic Defenses at Gezer: New Evidence. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 262: 9-34.
1987 The Middle Bronze Age: The Zenith of the Urban Canaanite Era. Biblical Archaeologist 50: 148-77.
1990 Of Myths and Methods. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278: 121-30.
Finkelstein, I. 1993 Shiloh: Renewed Excavations. Pp. 1366-70 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 4, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta.
Garstang, J. 1941a The Story of Jericho: Further Light on the Biblical Narrative. The American Journal of Semitic Languages 58: 368-72.
1941b The Story of Jericho: Further Light on the Biblical Narrative. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 1941: 168-71.
Garstang, J. and Garstang, J.B.E.
1948 The Story of Jericho, rev. ed. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott.
Hoffmeier, J.K. 1997 Israel in Egypt. New York: Oxford University Press.
Holladay, J.S., Jr. 1990 Red Slip, Burnish, and the Solomonic Gateway at Gezer. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 277/278: 23-70.
Kenyon, K.A. 1993 Jericho. Pp. 674-81 in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. 2, ed. E. Stern. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society & Carta.
Kitchen, K.A. 1989 Where Did Solomon's Gold Go? Biblical Archaeology Review 15.3: 30.
1996 The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt, 1100-650 B.C., second revised edition. Warminster, England: Aris & Phillips.
Merling, D. and Younker, R.W. 1994 Gezer and the Bible. Bible and Spade 7: 88-96.
Pritchard, J.B.The Water System at Gibeon. Philadelphia: The University Museum.
Rohl, D.M. 1995a Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest. New York: Crown.
1995b A Test of Time, vol. 1: The Bible - From Myth to History. London: Century.
van Haarlem, W.M. 1997 Review of A Test of Time, vol. 1, The Bible - From Myth to History. Bibliotheca Orientalis 54: 166-68.
Weippert, H. and M. 1976 Jericho in der Eisenzeit. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 92: 105-48.
1990 Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look At the Archaeological Evidence. Biblical Archaeology Review 16.2: 44-56.
1991 The Philistines Enter Canaan - Were They Egyptian Lackeys or Invading Conquerors? Biblical Archaeology Review 17.6: 44-52, 89-92.
1997 The Role of Shechem in the Conquest Narrative. Pp. 245-256 in To Understand the Scriptures: Essays in Honor of William H. Shea, ed. David Merling. Berrien Springs, MI: Institute of Archaeology, Siegfried H. Horn Archaeological Museum, Andrews University.
1999a Beth Aven: A Scholarly Conundrum. Bible and Spade 12: 101-108.
1999b Kh. el-Maqatir 1999 Dig Report. Bible and Spade 12: 109-14.
1999c The Search for Joshua's Ai: Excavations at Kh. El-Maqatir. Bible and Spade 12: 21-30.
1999d The Walls of Jericho. Bible and Spade 12: 35-42.
2000a Khirbet el-Maqatir, 1995-1998. Israel Exploration Journal 50: 123-30.
2000b Kh. el-Maqatir 2000 Dig Report. Bible and Spade 13: 66-71.
Yurco, F.J. Merneptah's Canaanite Campaign. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 23: 189-215.
Kemp, B.J. 1992 Explaining Ancient Crises. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1:239-44.
Kitchen, K.A. 1992 Egyptian Chronology: Problem or Solution? Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1:235-39.
Kitchen, K.A. 2001 The Shoshenqs of Egypt and Palestine. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 93:3-12.
Leonard, A., Jr., ed. 1993 A Review of Peter James et al. Centuries of Darkness: A Challenge to the Conventional Chronology of Old World Archaeology- A Workshop Held at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the AIA, Chicago, Illinois 1991. Colloquenda Mediterranea A/2.1. Bradford: Loid Publishing.
Manning, S.W. 1999 Why the Standard Chronologies are Approximately Correct and Why Radical Re-datings are Therefore Incorrect, in A Test of Time. Oxford, England: Oxbow Books. Pp. 415-19.
Postgate, N. 1992 The Chronology of Assyria-An Insurmountable Obstacle. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1:244-46.
Sherratt, A. and Sherrat, S. 1992 Urnfield Reflections. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1:247-51.
Snodgrass, A. 1992 The Aegean Angle. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1:246-47.
Frank Yurco has made a case for identifying the relief on the "Ashkelon Wall" at Karnak as a pictorial representation of Merneptah's campaign to Canaan ca. 1210 B.C. as recorded in the Merneptah Stela (Yurco 1986).
See: Yurco, F.J. Merneptah's Canaanite Campaign. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 23: 189-215.
And, "Pharaoh Merenptah Meets Israel" in the Summer 2005 issue of Bible and Spade, written by Dr. Bryant Wood and dedicated to Frank Yurco.
portrayed as Canaanites and an enemy chariot is shown in the scene.
there (cf. Hasel 2003: 34–36; Kitchen 1999: 76; Ward 1992: 1166).
We would urge you to delve into Mr. Yurco's article further, as well as the Summer 2005 Bible and Spade article.
Thanks for your interest in the ABR ministry!
it says that on the "Ashkelon Wall" relief has an Israelite leader using a chariot in 1210 BCE. How is the guy identified as an Israelite?
Good Article! Why is it not called "David Rohl's Revised Egyptian Chronology: A View From Judea". Since Archeologists' are our new Scientist's of the Ages, must you fellows always use Roman and Greek Mythos in your wording.
I mean collectively we have fallen for this time and again. We have taken the name of our creator and renamed Him after Jupiter, taken Mary and lifted her up to be equal with Rhea the 'queen of heaven', or Ma rhea. Iesous, or I am Zeus gets everyone arguing. When He was named after his Father and thus always when here, was called Yashua. To top it off we now have exported the national holiday of Saturnalia around the world. When His birthday of Sept 11, 3bc(see Rev 12) was a billboard in the heavens on this morning. The Creator set seven holidays up to celebrate and we do not one.
This is why I call on this word Palestine to be stricken. No one gave a hoot about the parched land for years until some folks came back to it. The descendants of Judea, commonly called Jews. They made it bloom again and produce and now everyone wants to be a "Palestinian". Almost like when the Govt decreed that a pregnant mother could get food stamps and welfare. Suddenly everyone wanted to be a pregnant mum and collect. Yassir Arafat once said "it doesn't matter where a palestinian is from. He went on to say that the people of palestine must rise up to live." Make a living he did, in the millions! All raked in spewing hatred and confusion over the backs of hard working Arabs and Judeans.
It is the same way when you the folks of the ABR, a noted outreach purports these words over and over. Pastor Joel has said many times that the spoken word has power. Yes, it does! Spoken words also have the power to confuse and divide. We now know that Eden and Nod existed. We know that a few miles west Noah would build an Ark and survive a Flood. A few more miles to the Southwest a man who is now called Abraham moved from the northern Ur to land that was deeded to him. We know there was a Semite, we call Joseph, He was raised from a pit or prison to become the second most powerful man in all Egypt. He had property in Goshen. We now know that Moses crossed the sea and went to Jabil al Laws'. We now Know that a rebel. A Semitic rebel united and became King over the same land deeded to Abraham.
How do we know any of this when no one kept records. Thanks to you at Biblical Research, we know and usually verify our history to be true archeology. From records of Egyptian, Chaldea, Persian artifacts. Records were kept after all. The one record that I believe is still the most reliable of all of this is the Scriptures kept by the "people of the book". So can we not be more careful when we throw words out for consumption.


The rules are straightforward, you must already be registered for gift aid and have made a gift aid claim. Your charity can then claim a payment equivalent to gift aid on cash donations of £20 or less, without the need for the donor to complete any paperwork, or for the donor to be a taxpayer. GASDS Claims are made alongside Gift Aid claims using the Charities Online template provided by HMRC. Note that an individual donation can only be eligible for one type of claim. It is either eligible under Gift Aid or the GASDS but not both.
HMRC states that to make a GASDS claim you must have claimed Gift Aid in the same tax year as you want to claim GASDS and without incurring a penalty in the last two years. You must also have claimed Gift Aid in at least two of the last four tax years (without a two-year gap between claims). Your GASDS claim can't be more than 10 times your Gift Aid claim – so if you receive £100 in Gift Aid donations in a tax year, you can only claim on up to £1,000 of small donations under GASDS for that year (when you actually submit the claim is irrelevant). The maximum GASDS claim is £2000.
A charity receives £8,800 in a tax year in eligible cash donations with documented Gift Aid donations of £800 and small cash donations of £8,000. The charity can make claims on all of its donations; £800 under the Gift Aid scheme, and £8,000 under the GASDS because the matching principle allows for a GASDS claim of ten times that of the Gift Aid claim for donations received in the same tax year. The charity will receive £2000 in GASDS (25% of £8000) which is currently the maximum and £200 (25% of £800) in Gift Aid from their £8800 donations.
Good to note that you should inform your supporters that they need to commit to Gift Aid to allow you to make a GASDS claim.
Telling people the mission of your charity is no longer good enough. It has become increasingly obvious in the last few months of blog reading and webinar listening that digital fundraising in 2019 will be all about telling stories about your organisation and stories about the people you support.
Whether we like it or not social media has changed the way we communicate with one another. Social media use is growing; 68% of adults use Facebook; 73% use YouTube and 82% of Baby Boomers use social media sites. When we hear a story, we relate it to our own experiences and how we feel about it. Your story should inspire your supporters to take action and share with their own personal social networks.
Story telling is the perfect way to communicate in personal terms your charity's mission, impact and to engage with your donors and supporters. Use your website, emails and your social networks (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube ….) to inform the world about what you do and how you are helping your community. The benefits of telling the right story will be bigger donations, increased media coverage for your cause and better connections with your current and new supporters.
A good story turns people from passive to active. Making readers understand and empathise with the subjects of your story, is 100% more effective than explaining what you do in a dry academic report. Great stories resonate with an audience. Decide who your story is appealing to and craft it accordingly. Your story will take shape when you have identified: your most active supporters; what they like; what motivates them; what makes them happy/sad and what's important to them.
Why not put together a series of stories on the same subject from different perspectives to appeal to different donor age groups and motivations.
Everyone in your organisation should be collecting stories: beneficiary stories; organisation stories; supporter stories; volunteer stories; event stories; donor stories; community stories – the list is endless. They should also be collecting images and making videos! If you want to showcase your organisation and the amazing things you do – what better way to do it than to engage those who do the work every day as well as the people in your community who benefit.
Finally, remember that donors fund people – not organisations – so make your stories about people!


text:
Q: Bootstrap 4 tabs with VuesJS in a loop - can't go back to the first tab I am using vueJS and Bootstrap tabs and can't get them to work properly. I can visit tab 1, tab 2, tab 3, tab 4, but then I can't go back to tab 1.
I can also go 1, 3, but then not 1 and 2. I can basically only go to the right
As these tabs are in a v-for loop, I add ids to each of them.
I have zero error/warning, each ID is unique.

                infosGenform

                inscrform

                machineform

                comform

        1

        2

        3

        4

Is it something you already experienced?
Thanks a lot

A: I would avoid using jQuery and use vuejs instead to navigate tabs. Here is my approach.
In your tab navigation add this @click.prevent="showTab(1)". The .prevent is to prevent default action of going to another page. In your other navigation do the same i.e @click.prevent="showTab(n)".
This means you will have to add a new vuejs method showTab(value)like below.

showTab(value){
  this.tab = value
}

In your tab content use vuejs show v-show="tab == 1" Find the full code below.

<template>

                        infosGenform

                        inscrform

                        machineform

                        comform

                1

                2

                3

                4

</template>

I hope this answer will help.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
London hails 2012 Olympic legacy benefits
AP PhotoSafety clothes for the London 2012 organising committee chairman Lord Sebastian Coe and members of the International Olympic Committee's coordination commission are set out before they boarded the first Eurostar train to travel from the planned Olympic site at Stratford International station to St Pancras in central London Tuesday June 12, 2007. Tuesday was the first of a three-day official visit to London by the International Olympic Committee inspectors
LONDON " The 2012 London Olympics is expected to produce the greatest long-term benefits of any host city since the 1992 Barcelona Games.
After the games, 9,000 houses will be built in or around the Olympic Park in east London as part of a 20-year program to bring in 40,000 new homes.
"London will be the most successful Olympic Games since Barcelona in 1992 in terms of its regeneration legacy," Mayor Ken Livingstone said Tuesday at the start of an IOC inspection visit. "As the next three Olympic Games follow London, we will still be getting the legacy benefits in terms of housing and employment."
The Olympic Park will provide five major sports venues " the main stadium, which will be reduced in seating capacity from 90,000 to 25,000 after the games; an aquatics center, velodrome and an indoor multi-sport center. The site will be the one of the largest urban parks in Europe in 150 years.
It's the first visit by the IOC's full 16-member commission since April 2006, and the second overall since London was awarded the games in 2005.
"Everything is being done on time," Culture Secretary and Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell said. "We are actually, believe it or not, doing pretty well and we have got a good story to tell the IOC inspectors this week."
The meetings come in the wake of last week's unveiling by London organizers of a jigsaw-style logo featuring four block-style jagged pieces combining to form the numbers 2012 in a variety of pink, blue, green and orange colors.
The logo has drawn sharp public criticism, with 30,000 people signing an online petition calling for the $78,930 design to be scrapped. Organizers were forced to withdraw part of a promotional video using the logo after claims it had caused some viewers to suffer epileptic seizures.
Jowell acknowledged Tuesday that the logo had "caused a storm" but stressed that it was here to stay.
"Call me unusual, but I think it's terrific," she told BBC television. "One thing you can say for this logo is that it has got people talking. It has got people talking about the Olympics. It has got people talking about what they like and what they don't like."
The IOC signed off on the logo in February, and London 2012 chief Sebastian Coe said there were no plans to change it. London will soon announce ways the brand can be used for community use.
"The shape will not change," said Coe, adding the logo would be discussed in the commercial presentation to the IOC on Wednesday.
However, he stressed the IOC commission was not looking at any single issue.
"This is a complex, challenging project," Coe said. "There are 17 themes and the conversation will more often vary between any one of those themes. There's no one focus."
In March, Jowell announced the overall cost of building the venues and regenerating east London had increased to $18.35 billion. During the bid process, the cost was estimated at $5.9 billion.
Jowell said Tuesday it was necessary to differentiate between the costs directly attributable to the games and those incurred as a result of the regeneration.
"The additional costs represent the scale of our ambition to regenerate the poorest part of London, one of the poorest parts of this country," she said.
Also Tuesday, the IOC panel members were scheduled to ride the first train on the new 7-minute rail ride between Stratford, the 500-acre East End site that will host the Olympic Park, and St. Pancras station in central London.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


A 2 day seminar for researchers within clinical practice for an international audience, to be held in Leeds. The client wanted a residential event with a separate and interesting venue to host a conference dinner on the first evening.
Facilities for a pre-conference meeting and dinner were also required.
The Queens Hotel in Leeds was the perfect venue to hold this international residential event and pre-conference meeting with dinner. A glamorous 4 star, art deco hotel with comfortable accommodation, adjacent to the train station oozing 1930s elegance proved to be a real hit, especially with overseas delegates. A conference area for exclusive use provided ideal meeting, catering and exhibition space over the two days and the public areas ensured discussions and networking extended beyond the conference day for the residential delegates.
The drinks reception and dinner was held at the Royal Armouries museum which was a short walk from the hotel. An informal dinner featured a selection of miniature main meails that introduced an element of choice and an opportunity for visitors to try traditional English cuisine. The setting allowed everyone to freely interact with both the gallery and other attendees.
The evening also included a performance depicting the story of an English Samurai; the entertainment provided delegates with an interesting topic of conversation as well as creating a memorable event for all those attending.
The team were always professional and attentive and delivered a first class conference including some last minute negotiations with the venue for the evening reception, all handled with panache!


We all know that smartphones are the future – and it should come as no surprise to learn that the majority of web browsing now takes place away from laptops and PCs on mobile devices. Yet almost half of the UK's top 100 law firms* still don't have mobile-friendly websites.
Over 60% of people regularly use their phones to look up businesses– and around 1/5 of those searches are for professional and legal services.
So what impact does this have on conversion rates?
Firms with non-responsive sites are losing up to 2/3 of visitors – with bounce rates of nearly 80%.
In this post we explain why your law firm's website must be mobile responsive, and how you can boost the value of your mobile content.
In the digital age, no business can afford to make life difficult for clients looking at their website.
We're all familiar with the uncomfortable experience of landing on a non responsive web page, only to give up when the content takes too long to load, or is out of reach of the zoom on your smartphone. Imagine the frustration of potential clients encountering this – and the impression that is created by an out-dated shop window.
Around 20% to 30% of law firm traffic comes from mobile devices – yet as of April this year only half of leading firms had mobile responsive websites – a surprising statistic given the recent Google update – which effectively favours mobile friendly designs.
So what impact do non-mobile friendly websites have on usage?
On non-responsive websites, a law firm's practice areas often act as landing pages – as people tend to arrive via search engines. These pages need to work quickly to sell the firm's services and expertise – converting visitors into valuable new business leads.
Tela analysed the mobile statistics from 10 large legal services organisations and compared to how likely users were to leave a non-mobile friendly page.
Mobile traffic bounce rates are on average 79% higher on non-mobile friendly sites compared to mobile friendly sites.
So why do 2/3 of people on mobile devices leave a non-responsive website?
Content is tiny and hard to read – the 'pinch and zoom' effect.
All of these factors make it harder for clients to find relevant content on a non-mobile friendly website – and the likelihood that they will become frustrated, and leave quickly, increases massively.
Content that looks good on a desktop might be cluttered and hard to read on a mobile device. Visitors won't stay on your site if they have to pinch to zoom in and out of content, or can't see the calls to action taking them to other pages.
Mobile friendly websites optimise the experience for every user – and provide a template specifically designed for the device, and screen size, they are using.
In theory this ensures that visitors are engaged for longer, and this was certainly the case with the law firm websites we looked at as part of our research.
Mobile visitors spend 23% more time viewing practice area pages on mobile –friendly sites than on non-friendly ones.
If content is king, then law firms without mobile sites are missing a serious trick here. A 23% drop in browsing time means potential clients are not finding the content they need – and are therefore much less likely to make contact with the firm .
Understanding mobile browsing behaviour is key to keeping potential clients engaged. These users want quick, basic information – a service overview, and contact details at most. More detailed content – such as news and blog based items – comes much further down their list of priorities, and should not clog up the landing page on a smartphone or tablet.
A non-responsive website could be killing your conversions.
Desktop websites in mobile browsers are simply ineffective at converting visitors. Calls to action and key content are often obscured. Forms are hard to submit. Links are difficult to click and if a visitor does want to learn more, relevant pages are hidden in tiny navigation menus.
Put simply, mobile users have very little patience. If they need to do too much work to complete a conversion, it's far less likely they will complete an action which will benefit your firm.
So in summary a mobile responsive website can have a huge effect on your law firm's conversion and bounce rates.
Think of your website as a shop window. You surely wouldn't dream of displaying your best products in miniature– or hiding them from your customers' line of sight. And remember, it's not just your clients who want to see relevant content– Google does too.